Bi??
 

Pretty sure we got this one right but just confirming with the experts!! :)

2 out and R3 stealing home on a wild pitch, ball hits the backstop and rolls along the fence up the third base side. Right handed batter backs up about 10 feet from the home plate and stands facing the plate wanting to watch the play.

Catcher grabs the ball and sidearms it to homeplate without looking and hits the batter right in the middle of the back. Play would have been close at home plate. PU calls the batter out BI.

Of course the offense said that the batter was no where near home plate so they could not be called for interference however, our opinion was that instead of being an observer of the play at the plate that the batter should have ensured that they were positioned in such a way as to not get in the way of the catcher's throw.

Did we make the right call?

Sounds like you got it to me, assuming your statement that the play would have been close is true. The statement by the coach that "batter was no where near home plate so they could not be called for interference" is really dumb.

Correct call in OBR. With less than two outs, the runner would have been called out I believe.

True for NCAA and NFHS, but don't believe that's true in OBR.

OBR as well.

I looked for it. Can you give me a rule reference? Thanks!

7.08(g)

The batter can't be required to disappear when there's a pinball game going on behind him at the backstop. Sure, he needs to try to back away. But if he makes an attempt to vacate, that should be enough to protect him from INT.

Let's put a lot of the blame where it belongs. The pitched ball is shooting around the backstop, here fellas. You really need to make a strong case for the batter getting in the way. It's the defense that caused all this mess in the first place.

The rules do a good job of balancing things like this. Just go by the rules. Don't insert your feelings about fairness or blame.

This is just wrong.

If the batter does not have time to vacate because the play happens to fast, the onus is on the defense. But in a play like the OP, the batter has plenty of time to find the ball and get out of the way. Failing to do that by either negligently standing in the batters box while the play develops around him, or by moving TOWARD the ball and making the play more difficult is interference, plain and simple. If they have time to move, they MUST get out of the way.

Mike, the OP reports that the batter moved TEN FEET away from the plate. How far do you want him to go?

What I would like to know from the OP is whether the throw would have gotten to the plate if it had not hit the batter, or whether it was way off line when it hit him. That's actually more relevant than the batter's distance from the plate.

If the throw was way off line, then I would not have called BI. If it was not off line and the batter was negligently in the way, then I'd agree with the call of BI.

Thanks!

Anywhere he's not interfering with the throw or the play.

I think the OP made it clear there would have been a play.

The batter should watch the ball and move so as not to interfere, he has plenty of time to do so. It may mean moving forward instead of backward. He should not stand watching the plate with back to ball on a line between the plate and the catcher so as to get plunked in the back.

Guilty. BI.

Away from the plate is irrelevant. The batter moved TEN FEET toward the ball and got in the way of the play. That's all that matters. The batter needs to get OUT OF THE WAY. Distance away from the plate means nothing. All that matters is that the batter get out of the way of the play.

Ten feet in a different direction.

Every one can get a "brain fart". For example, when I first read the OP, I visualed a poor throw by F2. But that didn't jive with the responses given, so I went back and read it again. On a second read-through, I think the key phrase is, "Play would have been close at home plate." It could only have been close if it was a quality throw, so that changed my visualization of the play completely, and I have BI here too. Batter should have looked to see where the ball really went; a couple steps up the line would have cleared the throwing lane.

The batter vacated the area around the plate. Unless he interfered with a player attempting to make a play, I've got nothing.

The batter has to interfere with a fielder's ability to make a throw, receive a throw, or attempt to tag a base or runner, to be guilty of interference. Ten feet from the plate, he didn't interfere with F2's ability to make a throw from near the screen, and based on the OP saying the play would have been close, F1 or whoever was covering home must have been well removed from the batter, so the batter didn't interfere with that fielder, either.

Interfering with a thrown ball is far different than interfering with a fielder's attempt to make a throw or receive a thrown ball. The batter must vacate the area around home plate so as not to interfere with the PLAY. He did. If he interferes with the THROW, it must be intentional.

You got it wrong.

Publius,
I don't agree. 7.08(b) says a runner may not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball.
7.09(c) is the applicable rule for this situation, and it covers either a batter or runner on a play at home before two are out and there is a runner on third. They may not hinder a play at the plate. "Play" is defined in the MLBUM, and a throw to put out a runner is one example of a play. Intent is not required.

A throw to put out a runner is a play. A thrown ball isn't.

In the OP, what do you think F2 was trying to do when the threw the ball?

Yes, and what's your point?

Yes, it is. You need to have a thrown ball to have a throw.

He was making a play on R3.

You do indeed, but that doesn't make it a play.

Necessary but not sufficient. ;)

dash,
So what are trying to say?

Publius wrote that he doesn't have interference unless it hinders a fielder's ability to make or receive a throw. In the OP, the throw itself is interfered with, and so Publius doesn't have interference without intent.

I disagreed, citing the rules. You quoted my post, and made a true statement, from which I infer that you think your statement had some relevance. But I can't tell if you're agreeing with Publius or agreeing with me, or have some other opinion.

Hence my question: What's your point?

A thrown ball in an attempt to a retire a runner is a play, as in the OP.

The definition of ‘play or attempted play’ in the MLBUM is in a specific context: the awarding of bases, and appeal plays. The purpose of 7.09(c) is to clarify the runner (not the batter) is out if interference occurs on a play at the plate with less than two outs--it isn't to determine IF interference occurred.

Here's what I learned over the years; you can accept or reject it as you wish.

For purposes of the OP, the batter is treated as an "offensive teammate" and not a batter.

Jaksa/Roder: "…Examples of 'offensive teammates' include:

a) a batter after a pitch has gone past the catcher (such batter is no longer trying to bat the pitch and is treated as an 'offensive teammate' in a determination of whether interference has occurred).

b) an on-deck batter.

c) a player who had been a runner but (who) has touched home and is signaling to a following runner…

The rule relevant to this play is 7.11: The players, coaches or any member of an offensive team shall vacate any space (including both dugouts) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball.

Evans interpretation:” This rule basically applies to batted balls. When an offensive member is involved with a thrown ball, no interference shall be ruled unless his actions are considered intentional.”

J/R interpretation:

“It is interference if an ‘offensive teammate’ :

1) (B)latantly and avoidably hinders a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.

2) (I)ntentionally hinders or impedes a fielder’s try to field a fair or catchable batted ball or thrown ball.”

MLBUM 6.16: “If a person authorized to be on the field unintentionally interferes with a fielder attempting to make a play, the ball is alive and in play.”

You might not accept J/R’s interpretation that the batter is not “the batter” when evaluating this play. If you don’t, the interpretations above aren’t necessarily applicable. It’s a good, common-sense approach to me, though, and I don’t accept everything in their manual as gospel.

I was taught that absent intent, which is always interference, the offensive member must interfere with a player, not the ball, to be penalized. In order to interfere with a defensive player’s play at the plate, a member of the offense must actually be NEAR the plate, and his actions must actually hinder the defensive player’s efforts. Both are necessary to justify an interference call.

In the OP, the batter/’offensive teammate’ vacated the area needed to make a play, and did not intend to get hit by the throw.

Play the bounce.

The flaw in your logic is the fundamental error exhibited in bold. Hence, everything after it is incorrect.

An offensive teammate is someone who is not a current participant (i.e. bullpen personnel, retired runners, scored runners, on-deck batters, etc.)

Well, I promise you that in professional baseball, there would be no BI called. The 'flaw' in my logic is widely accepted there.

Whatever you say...:rolleyes:

What Publius wrote is the most common interpretation and frankly.

That said, willful indifference can be "intent" and a batter who puts himself in the way 10' from the plate might have been smart enough to go to that general area intentionally.

What do two Roman emperors know about baseball?

No, it's not. MLBUM 6.8 (you know, the part that actually deals with BI, not 6.16, which specifically deals with offensive interference under 3.15) states unequivocally that if a batter leaves the box and interferes with the throw in any way, it is BI.

Try again, sock puppet.

I admit the copy given to me as an umpire is several years old but I don't see the unequivocal statement you mention.

Why the name calling?

6.8 BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER
Under Official Baseball Rule 6.06(c), if the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to retire a runner by stepping out of the batter's box, the plate umpire shall call "interference." The batter is out and the ball is dead (provided the catcher's initial throw does not retire the runner; see following paragraph).

Unequivocal.

It might refer to the curiosity that you appear sporadically and often when Publius posts. Seems to be some relationship where one of you has something up the other....like a sock puppet.

I had a batter step out (bail out) of the box to avoid a fastball to the head, then he got drilled with a snap throw to the helmet from F2 down to to 3B.

Should I have used the word unequivocal when explaining why I didn't rule interference?

No, you should have used the words, "your catcher sucks"!

Where was he throwing it, to the dugout?:)

That's where almost wound up.

The poor batter It's almost like having an accident, and Care Flight picks you up to transport you to the best medical facility in the world. Then the helicopter crashes.

Oh, the humanity!

LOL! Double Whammy!

Roman citizens?
 

I argue 7.11 justifies a valid interference call. The batter failed to successfully vacate an area needed to make a play, not the area of home plate which he did vacate, but the area between the throw and the catch which he did not vacate.

A runner is protected from interference with a throw, ala Reggie Jackson. Does this unusual ruling apply to a batter or his teammates who fails to vacate a throwing lane needed by the the defense to make a play?

Perhaps. Did you laugh real hard when it happened?

There is no connection between publius and me (at least that I know of; I don't know who he really is).

Mr. Tyler's post gives the reason I choose not to post more here, and it's just getting worse. I posted recently because there were two or three threads in a row in which I thought I had something to add.

That's an interesting observation. Wrong, but interesting.

Given that he has posted only threescore or so times, it was easy to check. In the five years I've been here, there are exactly two threads in which we both commented--this one and one other.